Trial reportPloS one2023
Using machine learning to design a short test from a full-length test of functional health literacy in adults-The development of a short form of the Danish TOFHLA.
Trial report in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analysis of Influencing Factors Related to Health Literacy of Diabetic Patients: A Survey Based on DHLEIS.Journal of diabetes research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPatients are compelled to become more involved in shared decision making with healthcare professionals in the self-management of chronic disease and general adherence to treatment. Therefore, it is valuable to be able to identify patients with low functional health literacy so they can be given special instructions about the management of chronic disease and medications. However, time spent by both patients and clinicians is a concern when introducing a screening instrument in the clinical setting, which raises the need for short instruments for assessing health literacy that can be used by patients without the involvement of healthcare personnel. This paper describes the development of a short version of the full-length Danish TOFHLA (DS-TOFHLA) that is easily applicable in the clinical context and where the use does not require a trained interviewer. MATERIALS AND
methodsData were collected as a part of a large-scale telehomecare project (TeleCare North), which was a randomized controlled trial that included 1225 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The DS-TOFHLA was developed solely using an algorithm-based selection of variables and multiple linear regression. A multiple linear regression model was developed using an exhaustive search strategy.
resultsThe exhaustive search showed that the number of items in the full-length TOFHLA could be reduced from 17 numeracy items and 50 reading comprehension items to 20 reading comprehension items while maintaining a correlation of r = 0.90 between the scores from full-length and short versions. A generic model-based approach was developed, which is suitable for development of short versions of the TOFHLA in other languages, including the original American version.
conclusionsThis study demonstrated how a generic model-based approach could be applied in the development of a short version of the TOFHLA, thereby reducing the 67 items to 20 items in the short version. Furthermore, this study showed that the inclusion of numeracy items was not necessary. The development of the DS-TOFHLA presents an opportunity to reliably identify patients with inadequate functional health literacy in approximately 5 minutes without involvement of healthcare personnel. The approach may be used in the development of short versions of any scaling questionnaire.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.